November 2010

November 30, 2010

"Don't make that face! It might freeze that way!" It's a silly little thing parents say to kids. We've all heard it. Even as children we knew it wasn't true. But now I'm aging and I realize something profound: it was true! There are lines in my face representing the most dominant facial expressions I've been making all these twenty-nine years, and from the looks of it, I've been spending a lot of time making a lot of faces! I guess I should have listened.

I saw her in an airport. I surmised her age to be somewhere in the late sixties or early seventies. I tried to stop myself from making the observation that was unavoidable. After all, I knew nothing about her or the life she had lived. I had no concept of the heartache, difficulty, and trouble that might have dogged her throughout her days. But one thing was clear to me: she had spent a significant amount of time scowling. So much so, in fact, that her entire countenance was now permanently wrinkled into a mean and angry expression. Everything seemed to be perfectly aligned to present the idea that she was totally ticked off! How unfortunate for her that whatever combination of circumstances and her reaction to them had produced what apparently was a habit of unhappiness. She had made a mean face often and for a long time. Now, before I go any further, allow me to dig out of this hole in which I've put myself. She may have been perfectly happy. She may have been entirely nice. She may have been the greatest woman walking the planet. All I'm saying is that her face showed signs to the contrary.

Wouldn't it be nice if the inevitable aging process instead froze smile lines on our faces; if our most dominant facial expression indicated happiness and contentment? To me, it seems, that's precisely what most people wish for. In fact, throughout my life, I've noticed that one of mankind's highest aspirations is to "Be Happy." If you observe how people behave, they do a lot of what they do in order to make themselves feel happy. I've had more people than I can remember tell me, "I just want to be happy." There are songs that tell us to "Don't Worry, Be Happy," people wish each other Happy Birthday and Happy Holidays and Happy Anniversary and we read in story books how they lived Happily Ever After (and we suspect they lied). Our nation's founding documents promise us the right to a "Pursuit of Happiness." Everything seems to be focused on this concept called happiness.

The strange thing is, however, that most people seem to be terrible at predicting what will make them happy. They chase after this thrill, or that one. They rearrange their lives around a new job, a new challenge, a new relationship, a new hobby, or a new anything else. It's this next thing that's going to make them happy. "As soon as" they:

1. get into college

2. get out of college

3. get married

4. get divorced

5. have kids

6. have the kids move out

7. make it to the weekend

8. go on vacation

9. get out of debt

10. get that promotion

11. get that recognition they think they deserve

12. get that new car

And the list goes on. But how often does the attainment of the items on this list actually make someone happy? How often are people right about that next thing producing happiness in their lives?

Answers to these questions have launched researchers on quests for many decades. There is even a strange sounding "Science of Happiness" category in which behavioral "experts" dig into the components of happiness. Predictably, however, these experts can't come to an agreement on just what comprises happiness and what produces it over the long term. There are many interesting theories.

One theory posits that happiness is like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Like a pyramid with the most essential elements such as food, air, water, rest and sleep at the bottom, once those needs are met the next level is safety, including shelter, security, protection, and stability. Once those needs are met the next level is love and belonging, comprised of family and friend relationships. Higher still is self-esteem which includes achievement, status, and responsibility. The top is the high-sounding self-actualization, which is made up of fulfillment, self-sufficiency, creativity, morality, and authenticity. Ascending this pyramid supposedly makes one more happy.

Another theory says we are happy when we have the perception of control over events, paired with a noticeable amount of progress in our endeavors, along with a connectedness to others, and finally with a vision toward something of higher meaning than ourselves.

Still another one gives the memorable phrase, "Someone to love, somewhere to go, and something to do."

Yet another says happiness comes from three levels; pleasure, passion, and purpose. Purpose being the most important, pleasure the least.

Aristotle said, "happiness is the only thing men desire for it's own sake," meaning, everything men desire they desire because they think it will produce happiness. They are all secondary pursuits to the main goal: happiness.

Happiness, as indicated by the wide range of theories and humongous amount of focus placed upon it by seemingly everyone (even those who don't seem to be happy unless they are unhappy!), is important to us. It is behind nearly everything we do. It drives us, motivates us, and dictates our behavior. It's just that it is mostly beyond us. We cannot obtain it from direct pursuit.

So how do we obtain happiness?

I have said that the only way to BE HAPPY is to GIVE HAPPY. This, of course, is just another theory to be tossed on the pile with the others. But I have found it to be true. Whenever I am serving, giving, and loving, I end up feeling happy. Whenever I get out of my own little world and seek to get into the world of others, I seem to feel happy. Whenever I forget all about my own happiness and get committed to helping make others happy, I find that happiness boomerangs around back to me. On the contrary, when I do things to make myself feel happy directly, at best, they are fleeting moments of shallow happiness, not the lasting, deep, meaningful happiness for which our hearts truly yearn.

And that brings me to my point, the making of which I trust will bring you happiness, but perhaps not as much as when I bring this article to an end! Nonetheless, I bring you to this: happiness, despite all the indicators and theories and focus, is not our true goal. We only think it is.

Blaise Pascal, the seventeenth century French mathematician, philosopher, inventor, and all-around smart guy, once said, "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus."

I used to hate "God talk," "Churchianity," and "Religiosity." I didn't want anyone talking to me about their religion or beliefs or anything else where they had something figured out that I didn't. During this same time, however, I was chasing one thing after another hoping to find happiness. I was on a mad dash for a finish line with no banner, grabbing at smoke, trying to catch happiness and nail it to the wall like a trophy. None of it produced happiness. I was on an endless chase. Like the dog who caught his tail and didn't know what to do with it, I was terrible at predicting what I needed. When I got what I thought I wanted, I found out I didn't really want it. All the while the answer was there before me. I had been created by a loving God and was built to find my rest in Him. I could run, I could hide, but my heart would bear me out: there was no happiness in the things I thought would make me happy. There was nothing but theories and the next thing to pursue.

I can't write about happiness without unmasking it for what it is: a fickle flirt. Happiness is a temporary feeling that comes and goes. It teases us into wasting our time and energies toward its attainment, when all along It is not our highest aspiration, though we may think it is. What we are truly seeking is deeper and more permanent than happiness: what we are truly seeking is something called Joy. You will hear that term mentioned often during this Christmas season. It is not a synonym for happiness, but rather the actual article for which happiness is a mere impostor. It is the true object of our hearts, and as Pascal states so eloquently, it can only be found through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In that condition, our existence makes sense, our heart finds its true longing, our soul finds its rest, and our whole being is flooded with the joy that only He can give. Joy doesn't come and go based upon circumstances. It doesn't rely on a situation or outcome. It is deep, permanent, divine, and lasting. It is also what we've been searching for all along.

November 20, 2010

The long awaited next Caption Contest is here! The winner will receive an autographed copy of Orrin Woodward and my book: Launching a Leadership Revolution(for free, as in nada, nothing, zippo, we'll just give it to you! Now that is no scam! Just make us laugh the hardest and it's yours! Oh, and, of course, should you already own a copy of Launching a Leadership Revolution (as, of course, you should) we'll instead send you an autographed copy of the RASCAL book. We'll leave it up to you. Just make your caption a good one!)

November 17, 2010

Teams are endlessly interesting because they are made up of people. People, as we will learn throughout our lives, are mind-bogglingly complex. First of all, we get to deal with the two genders. Then we get to deal with those who are single and those who are wed, those who've been widowed and those who've been divorced, those who have children and those who do not. Then we find that people come from different cultures, speak different languages, and worship in different ways. We also discover that there are personality types or temperaments. Additionally, we are told that there are various natural "love languages." Then there are the youth and the elderly and the rest of us in between. Also, there are those who like the New England Patriots, and those who don't. But there is one more variation among individuals that I find worthy of mention, and it is this: how they behave when dealing with others.

Working with other people takes a special skill. It requires emotional maturity, patience, acceptance of others and their views, flexibility, the ability to listen, a certain degree of humility, the ability to influence, and the need from time to time to apologize. Some people tend to get pushed to the side in group settings, while others tend to do the pushing. Interactions vary according the an infinite number of combinations of the factors described in the first paragraph above. But there is one tendency, call it a trait, if you will, that is supremely destructive to human interaction and certainly to the functioning of a team. Some call it Passive Aggressive behavior, but when one reads the clinical definitions and professional opinions associated with that term, it doesn't quite fit what I'm discussing here. Nope. For our needs, we'll need to invent a new term. Let's call it:

Genteel Back-Channeling

Just what exactly is Genteel Back-Channeling? It's the behavior of a person who is genteel in public but acidic in private. He or she will not confront the person with whom there is a problem, but will tell others all about it later. Genteel Back-Channelers are masters at involving those who are not part of the problem nor part of the solution. They expand the circle, so to speak, amplifying the problem. They throw gasoline on a spark instead of water. This type of person is conflict-averse and gossip-prone. He or she won't handle issues head-on and out in the open, but rather will "back channel" by trying to build up a coalition of people who "side with their view" through whispering campaigns in the shadows of the hallways. These people are political in nature: they play games and keep score. They generally get their feelings hurt, carry grudges, pout, and assign motives to the behavior of others. Genteel Back-Channelers can make the best of first-impressions but are usually marked by a trail of relational wrecks behind them.

How can you spot this behavior? Here are some signs:

1. "Hey, can I speak to you after the meeting?"

2. "I didn't want to say this in there, but, . . . ."

3. "Do you agree with what Bob said? I"m not so sure . . . ."

4. "Can you keep a secret?"

5. "I love Bob to death, but . . . ."

6. "I didn't tell Bob this, but . . . ."

7. "Bob's a great guy, has some great qualities, it's just that . . . . "

8. "I don't think Bob knows how the rest of us are feeling . . . ."

9. The "silent treatment"

10. Acting like nothing is wrong in public when they've said negative things in private.

It is important to understand this type of behavior because Genteel Back-Channelers appear nearly everywhere groups of people work together. Rare is the team or organization that doesn't have at least one in a position of influence. To have a highly functional team, however, Genteel Back-Channeling cannot be allowed. Otherwise, factions will develop, relationships will be damaged, political games will be played, and what happens "behind the scenes" will trump anything that happens out in the open.

So what do you do if your organization, team, work group, or (swallow hard) family has someone or several someones demonstrating Genteel Back-Channeling behavior?

1. Confront the situation head on, in love.

2. Give clear guidelines for acceptable behavior, but also for those which will not be tolerated. Make sure the whole team understands what's expected. (For the correct way to confront issues and resolve conflict, see my friend Orrin Woodward's blog.)

3. Pray for the offending individual, and for a sweet spirit in yourself as you deal with him or her.

4. If destructive behavior persists, remove the individual from the team or group. This will often be difficult, but entirely necessary. A dysfunctional team is no team at all. In some cases, you will simply have to disassociate with the person.

5. Check yourself against this kind of behavior and make sure your own example is beyond reproach. If it hasn't been, apologize and seek forgiveness.

If you have ever had the great fortune of working on a highly functioning team of people, you will know there are very few situations more fun and exciting, or more productive. But such a special situation can be utterly ruined by one person with that dangerous blend of pride and cowardice; the Genteel Back-Channeler. Like a little bit of arsenic in a batch of brownies, it doesn't take much to ruin the chemistry of a team.

There. You can't say you haven't been warned. (Just don't tell anyone who told you. It's just a secret between you and me. I love those other people to death, but . . . .)

November 16, 2010

Bob mopped and mopped but couldn't seem to make any progress. The water just kept flowing, flooding his laundry room and seeping out into the rest of his home. Nearly exhausted, mops soaked, water still flowing, only then did Bob consider the source of the water. A quick inspection revealed a split pipe just below the sink. With decisiveness and speed, Bob turned an upstream valve and stopped the flow of water. Within seconds the stream of water that had previously been constantly soaking the floor dribbled to a stop. With one last mop Bob was able to eradicate the last spilled water and remove the final traces of moisture from his laundry room. Shaking his head in wonder, Bob couldn't believe how the pressure of the emergency had distracted him from attacking the problem at the source. He was only glad his wife had not seen his hour-long dance with insanity!

The above is a rendition many have used to illustrate the fallacy of becoming distracted by the symptoms of our problems instead of focusing on their root causes. This succinct parable is so simple and so obvious that we think it could never happen to us. Of course we should turn off the source of the water. Who wouldn't? But yet the world is full of people chasing symptoms and ignoring causes. Entire industries exist to treat symptoms, convincing people that they are at least "doing something" about their problems. But we must develop the belief that problems can be solved. It is not enough to be "doing something," we must learn to do the correct things.

Leadership success is largely dependent upon the leader's ability to think through situations and arrive at root causes. In short, the best leaders identify problems, then solve them.

Let me say that again: the best leaders

1) identify problems, and then

2) solve them.

This makes perfect sense. It is obvious. It is so simple that a grade school student could understand it. But don't rush past the seemingly elementary. Stop and consider that very few people ever develop the ability to identify root causes. Even fewer learn to solve them. But solving problems largely stems from properly identifying their root causes. Therefore, put enough energy into step 1), and you're well on your way to accomplishing step 2). It is for this reason that a leader must have the discipline to do the hard work of thinking through the tough issues in order to define them properly. Thinking of this type is hard work, and, as Henry Ford once quipped, "Thinking is the hardest work there is. That's why so few people engage in it." But a leader does not have the option of avoiding this difficult work. In fact, this IS the work of a leader.

What are the top five problems assailing you and/or your organization at the moment?

Have you done the hard work of (continually) thinking through these issues?

For each, have you identified the root causes behind the aggravating symptoms?

Are you expending resources and energy fighting symptoms that only appear to be causes?

Problems can be solved if and when they are properly identified and confronted head-on. Learn to work at the roots and the leaves will take care of themselves.

November 12, 2010

Have you ever considered just what we mean when we say, "He seems like a pretty nice guy?" Does it mean he has good manners, is kind, friendly, amicable, and easy to get along with? Most likely. Does it also mean he is slow to anger and quick to laugh? Also likely.

Allow me to add another aspect to the mix of those whom we consider to be "nice." There is a subtle behavioral difference among people, I find, and it involves a choice in how to interpret the actions of other people. Here is what I mean.

You are in traffic, in a rush to get somewhere, and suddenly a slow driver pulls out in front of you with no apparent care in the world. Operating entirely on a difference clock speed than you, the person forces you to sit through red lights you'd otherwise have made, and no matter how you try, you just simply can't get around him or her. How do you react? Do you fly into a rage and begin reciting the relative demerits of their ancestors? Do you take it in stride and just go along with the flow, realizing there's not much you can do to change their pace? Or do you react somewhere in between? "They're doing that on purpose!" you might conclude. "They pulled right out in front of me just to spite me!" you think. Perhaps your reaction depends upon the circumstances of your day, your mood, and the position of the moon relative to your mother-in-law. That is all understandable. But allow me to finally get to my point, which is this: when confronted with frustrating behavior (to you, at least) on the part of another person, do you generally

1) give them the benefit of the doubt, or

2) assign a motive to their behavior?

Your answer to this question, I believe, has a lot to do with whether or not people consider you to be "nice," or otherwise.

"That jerk did that on purpose!" you might say or think. "He did this, which means that, and he knew darn well that . . . ." or "He should have done this if he wanted me to . . . " or "I know what he really meant by that," and the list of examples goes on.

Some of the "nicest" people I know, who have therefore become great friends of mine, are people that seem to usually choose response number 1). They are slow to assign illicit motive to the behavior of others, they demonstrate a level of patience with other people's actions, and they are slow to pass judgment. Others, with whom I have sometimes temporarily been in association, seem to predominately choose response 2), in which they automatically assign motives and reasons to the behavior of others. Rarely, if ever, are these motives positive. It is as if they think they have an incredibly acute clairvoyance, which allows them to both clearly understand the reasons for another person's behavior (when that person may not even understand his behavior much himself!) and to draw conclusions from that behavior which reflect wider consequences. "He's doing that because blah blah blah, and that can only mean he thinks blah blah blah."

Our society is actually quite genteel. It is difficult to get away with behavior that is too rude or openly obnoxious. Therefore, many people have learned to shield these "motive assigning" thoughts a little bit. They appear kind and gentle on the outside, but inside they are world-class motive assigners. This leads to passive aggressive behavior, pouting, moping, broken lines of communication, the carrying of grudges, and a whole host of other childish behaviors. Sadly, in the end, they mostly hurt themselves. Their lives are a long, sorry tale of broken relationships and fractured friendships. As the saying goes, bitterness is a poison pill one ingests while hoping to hurt the other person.

The benefit-of-the-doubters, on the other hand, are disarming. The more you hang around them the more comfortable you feel. You become less and less self-conscious, less afraid of being authentic, and less fearful of making mistakes. You begin to realize that even if you do mess up, you will likely be given the benefit-of-the-doubt and everything will be okay anyway. As a matter of fact, when you dig deep enough into the thought process of a benefit-of-the-doubter, you realize that they assign motives, too. It's just that they tend to assign positive ones to you instead of negative ones! Talk about "nice!" Who wouldn't want to hang around someone who was quick to think the best of us as a knee-jerk reaction to any of our actions?

As you consider these two types of people, I imagine you've already had names pop into your head of those who fit each of the categories. I know, it's hard not to do. But classifying people that way is almost as bad as assigning impure motives to their behavior! So stop it (and I will try to stop, as well!). Instead, take the constructive side of this message and analyze your own behavior. Are you a motive-assigner or a benefit of the doubter? What would your five closest friends and/or family members have to say about you?

It's worth considering. And if you don't like the answer you get back about yourself, change!

If you don't? Well, it simply means that you are a lousy no-good loser that assigns motives to people because you've got an axe to grind with a chip on your shoulder about that one time you asked me . . . aw, never mind. I know why you did what you did, and I'm not speaking to you anymore.

November 11, 2010

I was a newlywed at the time. That should explain a lot. Also, I had grown up doing dangerous things in a world that hadn't yet caught the "safety addiction."

For instance, when I was a kid it was considered quite normal to be carted around town in the back of a pickup truck, ride in cars without seat belts, hold your baby on your lap in the front seat (our car had baby-bite marks in the vinyl door panel to prove it!), play with lawn darts, ride three wheeler ATVs, mow your lawn without hearing protection, sit in a pinch-your-fingers metal high chair, burn leaded gasoline, ride in the back window of a car, pour your used motor oil out at the end of your driveway, siphon gas with a garden hose, burn your trash in a barrel in your yard, use lead paint, attend schools featuring asbestos pipes, paint a car in your garage without OSHA approval, skateboard without pads, get spanked with Dad's belt, walk to school (both ways, up hill, in the snow), sit two inches from the television, drink water from the tap, and ride a bike without a helmet.

As I write this, some of these are cracking me up. Others seem quite trivial. The least of these, at least at the time of my "newlyweddedness," was the bike helmet one. I just didn't get it. I'd raced motocross, off-roaded Jeeps and trucks, jet-skied the waves of the Great Lakes, and any number of moderately risky things. Of course, with few exceptions, I'd participated in these activities while adorning the proper safety equipment. I'd even done a fair bit of mountain biking and had, of course, worn a helmet. But riding a bike around a paved neighborhood? Why in the world would I need a helmet for that?

Married less than a year, we had just moved into our first official home. The sunny summer afternoon beckoned us outside and we pulled our bikes from amongst the stacks of boxes yet to be unpacked. I was about to open the garage door when my wife said, "Aren't you going to put on your helmet?"

"What?" I said, incredulous. Surely she was joking.

"Come on. Just wear it. It's about safety."

"Safety? Are you kidding me? We're going for a little leisurely ride on flat, paved streets! I've never worn a helmet when biking, ever! Only on tough trails and stuff."

"Honey," she reasoned, "just wear it. It won't hurt to be safe, and besides, it'll set a good example for the neighborhood kids."

"Neighborhood kids? You've got to be kidding me! They aren't our kids! And besides, they won't even notice a couple of adults casually riding by on their bikes. No way!"

Showing the grace her husband would (hopefully) someday learn, she let it drop. We raised the garage door and rode out onto our short little driveway. We couldn't have made it ten feet when the three-year-old neighbor girl loudly proclaimed, "Hey! Daddy! How come HE doesn't have to wear HIS helmet!?"

No matter who you are, where you live, or what you do, someone is watching. Importantly, it might be your own children, loved ones, friends, and/or relatives. It may even be strangers. Quite possibly, it will be the three year old girl next door.

Example is a funny thing. Whether you want to have one or not, you do. It is not optional. It is simply there, every minute of every day of your entire life. Never underestimate the power of your own example. As Albert Schweitzer is often credited with saying, "When it comes to influencing people, example isn't the main thing, it's the only thing." While this might be an oversimplification, the sentiment is worth considering.

Give careful thought to who you may be influencing (and how) on a daily basis. Who is watching you? What do they see? If they had to give an evaluation of your behavior, what would they say? Are you a model worth copying? Are you coming across the way you think you are? Or, in the clearest of terms, are you who you say you are? Are you even who you think you are? Whether you want to admit it or not, people watch, absorb, and copy (or reject) you.

November 10, 2010

Scan any book store and you'll find millions of books on how to make more money, thousands about how to be more spiritual, hundreds about how to be a better wife and mother, and maybe five or six on how to be a better husband and father. Rarest of all, however, and relegated to the skinny shelf-space reserved for titles such as "Honesty Among Politicians" and "Government Thrift," you may occasionally find one or two books on friendship.

Friendship.

It's a word familiar to us all. Just hearing it evokes an immediate understanding of what is meant by the term. No definitions are required. We understand, got it, get it, and own it.

Or do we?

In my life I have been blessed by many friends. But more and more as I age I have come to discover that a true friend is one of life's rarest finds. What passes for friendship among most is no more than familiarity through some shared experience, membership, or proximity. I have experienced (as I am sure has every reader) people who claimed to be or acted like friends who behaved in the most un-freind-like manners. I won't elaborate. Rather, I'd like to focus upon what should be obvious aspects of friendship in an attempt to shine light into this strangely obscure genre.

First of all, friendship is an unofficial, mutually beneficial relationship involving at least two parties. Friendships generally start spontaneously or casually and blossom into more as bonds are built and commonalities are discovered. But everything can't be in common: some of the best friendships grow out of complementary trait alignments.

Second, friendship requires giving and taking on both sides. As long as the exchange maintains some sort of balance, the relationship can continue. Anything too one sided is no longer friendship. There must be flexibility and tolerance, forgiveness and grace extended in both directions.

Third, friendship should be fun. After all, we can always get around people who's company we don't enjoy (insert any number of in-law or family reunion jokes here).

Fourth, friendship should be relatively easy. It's not that a good friendship won't require some maintenance and uncomfortable moments at times (which can actually serve to tighten bonds of trust and respect), but for the most part, friendships should be a comfortable load in an otherwise strenuous world. We have enough people in our lives with whom we are forced to maintain some sort of relationship; we don't need our friendships to be sources of strain.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, friendships can only exist on a foundation of trust. Many casual relationships carry most of the features above, but when it comes right down to it, the parties can't actually and fully trust each other. Not so for true friendships. In true friendships, trust is a must.

Now, if you'd like to get a clearer picture of the friendships in your life, simply write down the five people who you consider to be your "best friends." Think carefully about this. Make sure they satisfy all of the above attributes.

Were you able to come up with five who totally satisfied the list? Many people can't. When we really stop to consider the features of friendship, a concept we often take for granted, we begin to realize just how rare a true friend actually is.

Look at the list of attributes again. Now ask yourself how well you satisfy them for someone else. Who do you think would put you on their list of five?

Want to have better friends? Be a better friend. How? By examining the above list of features and remembering to be those things for another person.

Anonymous Friendship Quotes:

"A friend is someone who knows all about you and loves you anyway."

"The best mirror in the world is a true friend."

"True friends are difficult to find, hard to leave, and impossible to forget."

"A true friend is one who thinks you are a good egg even when you're half cracked."

"A friend will help you move, but a true friend will help you move a body."

November 09, 2010

People don't like to be told what to do. Even children are not very receptive to instruction. So when governments set out to take over peoples' freedoms (which means, quite simply, government telling people what to do instead of people making their own choices) they have to get crafty. Some serious skill is required. That's where politicians come in. Politicians are educated in the arts of "creep." Not to be confused with the derogatory word which, coincidentally, can accurately be applied to many bureaucrats, creep is a term used to describe a specific strategy nearly perfected by governments. Here's how it works.

Since people don't like to be told what to do and will generally resist being bossed around, something must happen to convince them to allow what would normally and naturally be considered contrary to their best interest. Although there are many ways to get the process started, usually a crisis of some sort is extremely useful. As one politician recently slipped up and stated publicly, "Never waste a good crisis." A crisis causes fear. Fear inhibits clear thinking and causes all kinds of knee-jerk reactions. One such reaction is to allow people in power to utilize that power to "do something." Almost always, that "doing something" involves the growth of government through the creation of new agencies, bureaus, boards, committees, programs, expenditures, and the passing of new laws. This would all be fine and dandy, except for three little reasons:

1) they cost money and therefore create massive problems of their own,

2) they generally don't work, and finally,

3) they generate secondary consequences (some would say "unintended" consequences, but given the power lust of many bureaucrats, one wonders).

With each new government creation the "creep" into our personal freedoms increases. Freedom shrinks as governmental interference grows. Many think it's all okay as long as they are getting their pet programs, handouts, freebies, kickbacks, and power perks. This is why a growing government is always accompanied by a growing "mooching class." As this plays out, "experts" in government get to decide things we ought to be free to decide for ourselves. "They" are cock-sure that they know what is better for us than we do. Programs and "Great Societies" and "fairer resource management" and "progress" are trumpeted as grand new foolproof ideas. But it is really the same old story of control over the many by the privileged few that litters the pages of every history book. Freedom bleeds to death on the altar of government worship.

There is a cute illustration often used to describe "creep," and it goes like this. Anyone who has ever spent any time around animals knows they are filthy. Camels, famously, are some of the nastiest and filthiest of all. Traveling in caravans across the sub-Saharan deserts for centuries, traders would tie up their camels a distance far enough from their tent to prevent the camels from trying to get in. Nobody, no matter how dependent upon his camel for survival and transportation, would choose to lodge alongside his camel within the warmth and comfort of his tent. The camels, however, resisted this fact. No matter how unwanted they were within the confines of their owner's tent, they still desired to partake in a little of that luxury themselves. They would start their attempt by pushing only their nose under the tent flap. If this went successfully unnoticed, they would slide the full length of their head in. Gradually, little by little, they would stick their whole neck inside, and finally their whole body. Suddenly, it would seem, the whole animal would be smugly inside the tent enjoying the shelter from the elements, entirely crowding out the tent's rightful owner. Government can be seen to act in the same way. "It's just a temporary expedient until the crisis is abated," they say, sliding their nose under the flap. "Just a little while longer and we'll have this problem licked," they say, sliding in their entire head and neck. And on it goes. As President Reagan said, "There is nothing quite so permanent as a temporary government program."

The strangest fact, however, is that so many people seem intent on actually helping the camel sneak into the tent! But a little thought is all that's required to explain this strange situation: they don't want a camel in their own tent, they only want to help one get into yours! However, if they really have bought so far into the blind dribble of our day to actually think they want a camel in their own tent, then, well, I suppose they deserve the flea bites they'll receive.

November 08, 2010

In my crazy teenage years I became consumed by a magnificent obsession. It was on my mind in the morning, afternoon, evening, and night. As my tee shirt at the time said: I ate, drank, slept, walked, talked, breathed, and lived motorcycles; specifically, motocross.

This was a little before the X-game craze; back when riding a motocross bike meant speed around a track more than tricks in the air. Still, the obstacles of a typical course were challenging and required all sorts of aerial maneuvers for effective racing. Chief among these was something called the Double Jump (and its cousin the Triple Jump, operating in much the same way).

The concept is simple. Two jumps are placed a significant distance apart. The fastest way to negotiate that part of the track is to hit the first jump and clear the second one, ideally landing on its downslope. This is called "Doubling." Wherever a double jump existed on a track, to be among the fastest riders and therefore have a chance of claiming the trophy, bragging rights, and adoration of "pit tootsies," one had to Double. To hit both jumps individually was slow and downright embarrassing. There is nothing like having all the endorphins in motion a teenager can muster while controlling a highly tuned racing machine only to have another such teenager fly past you in the air. The thought of it can still keep me awake at night. Besides, doubling meant flying much higher and farther through the air, and heck, that was worth it all by itself.

So we (my buddies and I) had to learn to double. We literally dug into the project. Every day after school we'd grab our shovels and head out to our make-shift practice track behind the Johnson's house across the street from my own. Spade-full after spade-full we'd hurl, until eventually we had constructed a pretty fair replica of what we were seeing on the official tracks on the weekends.

And of course, we all raced to be the first to try it out.

Everything is different the first time one approaches a double jump. It's the same terrain leading up to it, but the whole time the rider is aware of the challenge on the horizon. Somewhere in the far reaches of your mind the task ahead looms largely like a heavy cloud over the rest of the track. It doesn't help that your buddies are usually watching, too, ready to laugh, point, jibe, or call an ambulance, in whatever combination they feel appropriate. Finally, the jump is just around the next corner. You fumble your way through it, making the worst turn through that section ever. The nerves are building. The tingle in your throat is there. Your heart is beating hard in your chest. Your breathing slows into shallow little flutters. And then you reach it; the point of no return. It's that moment when you either goose the throttle all the way in total commitment or wimp out and back off, desperately searching for a plausible excuse for your cowardice. It's in that moment when you find out what you're made of, when you learn if you've got what it takes to push yourself beyond the limit, when you discover if you have courage. Your boldness (or lack thereof) is now public, your lunacy confirmed or denied. And usually, you clear the thing by twenty feet!

"That wasn't so bad!" is the normal response. The hardest part was truly deciding to do it; to wick that throttle all the way at that critical moment of no return and hang on for dear life.

Following a successful jump, one is then qualified to 'encourage' the others to do it, too, with helpful rejoinders such as "Come on, you sissies, it was nothing!"

Sometimes, however, the story goes a little differently. In the moment where it counts, where there is no turning back, where one must fully commit to jumping the double, some hesitate, back off, or chicken out. Usually this occurs when it is officially too late to turn back, when one's speed is too high to safely hit each jump individually but not high enough to actually clear the second one. The result is not pretty. The term for it is "casing" the second jump. Normally, when a rider reduces throttle suddenly in a panic and hits the first jump, the back of the motorcycle rises up menacingly while the front sinks like a stone. This combination, while hurling through the air at the face of the second jump, is enough to scare anyone out of their wits. It is also enough to cause serious bodily harm. Look through any collection of YouTube videos of this event to see what I mean. It is calamitous, and it was entirely caused by the hesitation of the rider. In most cases, if he (or she) had just stayed with their commitment to clear the double and not backed off or hesitated, they would have been fine. But logic is a little chicken when fear comes around.

This little lesson in motocross dynamics is more than just a stroll down memory lane, it's a metaphor for life. As we live out our days, we will be confronted with many figurative Double Jumps. What had been normal before will be changed by some event or opportunity on the horizon. Mustering the boldness, courage, fortitude and guts to hurl ourselves over the obstacle will usually result in all sorts of rewards and self-satisfaction. Failing to handle it so well will likely result in damage, loss, and regret. The result is up to us. And usually, it all comes down to our response in that one small moment of decision.

Will we have the guts to do the right thing? To stand our ground? To accelerate when most sane people would say to slow down? To push for great when good is so enticing? To serve others even when it hurts? To try our hardest when others are loafing? To push through the fears at the edge of our comfort zone and go into new territory? To force ourselves to fly higher and farther than ever before? To face up to ourselves in ways that show us what we're truly made of? To find out if we've got what it takes? To learn once and for all if we have courage or are a coward?

Perhaps most people don't want to face up to these hard moments in life. Perhaps they don't really want to learn what's inside because they think they might not like what they'll see. That's understandable. But just like that bunch of Michigan teenagers in a vacant field in the ninteen-eighties, you won't know until you try. And I personally believe that you'll like the feeling of pushing past your comfort zone and confronting your fears, even if you crash and burn a few times. Eventually, with enough attempts, with enough bold decisions in the face of fear, you'll discover just how far and how high you can fly. Prepare to surprise yourself!